Live data from Hacker News

Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

constructionphysics.substack.com

221–230 of 298 posts

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#221
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we need to account for the danger of disposal/long term storage of the dead batteries for solar as well. But I'm not sure what the calculation for that is vs. nuclear waste.

Batteries can be recycled. They contain expensive metals in high concentrations, recycling makes financial sense.

They can be recycled but it doesn’t appear we’ve had to deal with this much on an industrial scale - yet. Electric car batteries may be better off being “reused” for less demanding tasks after they’ve hit their usable limit for vehicle use. Of course they’ll need to be recycled eventually. This isn’t my domain so I’m very open to new information.

In regards to recycling lead acid batteries the work seems horrendous, for more information check out the lead poisoning cases from Florida workers at Gopher Resource in Tampa.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#222
post #80
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the fact is that we did go years without building any, leading to nuclear power plants being more expensive. It is the path we chose (rightly or wrongly) and today solar and wind is cheaper in the western world. Even if continuing to invest in nuclear in the 1970s was the right choice, it may no longer be the case today that we have those. (see Path Dependence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence ) In m…

Nuclear runs constantly. Solar and wind don't. This is a significant problem. Storage is hard and inefficient. We don't currently have a viable complete renewable solution. Nuclear is much better for the planet than fossil fuels and is the only option to bridge the gap required to operate the current renewables.

Actually, nuclear plants need maintenance once in a while too and they do have outages as well. Take France for example, a lot of their reactors are offline for maintenance right now. Right in the middle of the biggest energy crisis on the continent since the oil crisis in the seventies.

A lot of countries are already pretty far down the path of going carbon neutral. Mostly without building or planning to build nuclear plants. They are a lot less necessary than some nuclear proponents would have people believe.

Energy storage is actually a fairly simple problem. There are at this point dozens of different ways that are being used commercially to store energy. Including of course a wide variety of battery types, pumped hydro and other gravity based systems, thermal storage, synthesizing hydrogen and other gases/liquids that can be burned later, etc. The main challenge is not storage but cheap storage. Or cheaper storage as combined generation and storage bids are fairly common these days and already way cheaper than nuclear already. Scaling the deployment of these solutions over the next few decades will drop cost further.

And of course energy can also be moved around via cables over long distances. The main challenge is not just generating enough power but getting it to where it is needed. Long distance cables even out local fluctuations in solar and wind performance.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#223

Whenever we talk about nuclear power on HN, people are split in two groups: those who'd love to see nuclear power succeeding, and those who are against it and who support solar and wind. I am pro both nuclear and renewables. Solar and wind have been on an absolute tear lately. At least in the US (where I live) new solar and wind construction has been growing at a breathtaking pace during the last decade. Take a look…

I'm pro whatever is cheapest and fastest. Which just isn't nuclear. For every GW of nuclear coming online, there are hundreds of wind and solar GW coming online. An order of magnitude more power in an order of magnitude less time. And things are getting cheaper and faster still. Fifteen years from now that will be a lot cheaper and faster. Any plan that does not take that into account is not a great plan. And my problem with many of these nuclear startups is that they don't seem to do that. They are reluctant to talk about cost because it's a weakness and a problem for which they have no solution.

We're in a weird transition phase where gas/coal generation still exists and matters but have obvious financial challenges that are getting worse very quickly. Courtesy of the Russians, everybody is well aware of that now and can look forward to some really steep energy bills in the next year. But investors have been voting with their feet long before that happened as this has been quite obvious for a while now. Coal plants have been shutting down in many countries mainly for cost reasons and with a few exceptions (China, India), very few countries are building new ones. And now that cheap Russian gas is not an option, gas plants just got a lot more expensive to operate and they were already too expensive before that. Basically, that's an industry that is experiencing a rapidly accelerating collapse. It won't take until 2050 for that to be completed.

The only remaining debate is how soon we'll turn the remaining plants off. That's mostly a function of production capacity for solar and wind generation and energy storage solutions. More investment is flowing into that industry every year and we're seeing massive sustained growth there for decades in term of new capacity coming online every year. It's a super profitable industry to be in and a lot of those profits are getting reinvested in more and even better stuff. Lots of countries have been revising their already ambitious plans to become carbon neutral to be even more ambitious as they find themselves beating their own expectations of just a few years ago on this front. Ten years from now, a lot of countries will get the vast majority of their power from renewables and the remaining ones will be busy figuring out how to get in on the action.

Nuclear is getting lots of attention and investment obviously. But planned new capacity does not add up to mattering much at all over the next fifteen years. A few GW here and there vs. hundreds of GW in the next few years alone. And it takes that long to plan more nuclear plants and there are very little signs of countries warming up to that notion. A lot of those nuclear startups you mentioned won't hit volume production (if they survive long enough) before most countries have shut down all their remaining coal and gas plants. Which in Germany would be around 2035 according tot he latest plans. And those plans don't seem to involve any nuclear. Of course, that timeline might be accelerated due to recent events..

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#224
post #181

Just remember that a huge part of the current excess cost is in part: (a) because nuclear power is the only energy technology for which the full lifecycle costs have to be fully accounted for upfront. No one is accounting for the disposal costs of solar panels in their initial capital expenditure, for example. (b) The build costs in terms of energy of wind and solar are comparably high. They are raw material and ener…

That would be nice arguments if they would actually be true. a) typically nuclear plants don't have to include all life cycle cost into their calculations. Insurance is essentially not included (no insurance is willing to cover nuclear disaster), storage costs are not included to the full extend (partly because we actually don't know the cost, storage for these amounts of time is unprecedented) b) is also falso both…

No energy plant need to include insurance that cover disaster. People living downstream of a hydro electric dam have to pay their own insurance, and in the end it will still be the government that pick up the bill when people and homes are lost to catastrophic flooding.

Mining raw material also produce a lot of waste, including radioactive waste, much which will never be safe for humans. Those are generally stored for an indefinite time in pools or just in piles near the mines, with a sign warning people of the toxic material. There will be no one to pay the bill for waste storage except governments when the mining company close down. This is why drinking water near old (or new) mines is a exceptional bad idea.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but France exists.

I doubt Americans would be happy paying what France pays for electricity (both directly and government aid).

Right, but non-monetary negative outcomes are swept under the rug.

It costs nothing for fossil plant operators to pump carbon and sulphur into the atmosphere; that's why it takes regulation to make them install scrubbers. Scrubbers help, but don't prevent the outcome.

The outcome can be measured in human deaths and loss of arable land. That cost is hidden.

The "free market" is a grim joke while these costs can be ignored.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#226
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an odd argument. You're basically saying that being more knowledgeable about something makes your opinion less useful. Everyone knows there's bias but if you're arguing that we shouldn't value someone's opinion because they're an expert then we're not going to progress very far in society. I'm not saying you have to take his word as divine truth but dismissing experts is extremely naive.

If you're knowledgeable in one field primarily, I think it's likely you have some bias towards that field. If you are doing a lot of research only in e.g. Solar, I think it'd be harder to provide an unbiased comparison between solar and nuclear than someone who studies power generation in general. EDIT: At a first glance, the linked article seems reasonable if not a bit optimistic for future developments and very pos…

> If you're knowledgeable in one field primarily, I think it's likely you have some bias towards that field.

'It is ever the domain of specialists to overstate their domain.'

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#227
post #34

Yes, cost is the issue. Everyone assumes that anyone hesitant about Nuclear power is focussed on the environmental or safety concerns, but that is wrong. The costs (and cost overruns) of the construction and maintenance of Nuclear reactors have been enough reason on their own to be bearish on Nuclear. I'm hopeful that new technologies, such as small nuclear reactions that can be built in a factory, will address this.

If cost is the issue why is Japan spending so much e.g. estimates of 600 billion USD on cleaning up Fukushima? Rebuilding the entire nuclear power plant fleet of Japan would have been cheaper than a single meltdown.

Oh right, cost is an issue because obsolete nuclear power plants keep giving nuclear a bad name and end up increasing regulatory requirements on modern designs even if they don't have failure modes from 50 years ago. In other words, the nuclear power industry really likes shooting themselves in the foot.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#228
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even assuming that's the case, isn't the counterargument "Fine, then governments need to subsidize investment into nuclear power plants, just as we do with other green technologies."

I think not really. It depends on why you think subsidizing is a good thing. My personal take is that we should subsidize tech to take it from an early stage to a production stage as soon as possible. We need better power sources yesterday, not next century. So we can't sit around waiting for some sort of Elon Musk to get really passionate and dump heaps of cash into it. But the assumption there is that once the tech…

I agree with your reasoning, but on this tiny rock we call Albion I'm not convinced that renewables will ever be viable for base load.

I'm concerned about the tonnage requirement of strategic minerals for battery storage. Supplies for EV batteries are currently choked; we need to scale far beyond that for grid storage.

Pumped hydro at the required scale will be a feat of engineering comparable to nuclear engineering. Millions of tonnes of Portland cement will be an input.

And renewables are land-extensive; that's an impedance mismatch for us.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#229
post #34

Yes, cost is the issue. Everyone assumes that anyone hesitant about Nuclear power is focussed on the environmental or safety concerns, but that is wrong. The costs (and cost overruns) of the construction and maintenance of Nuclear reactors have been enough reason on their own to be bearish on Nuclear. I'm hopeful that new technologies, such as small nuclear reactions that can be built in a factory, will address this.

Our nations were far less wealthy when the existing stock of nuclear power plants were built, the technology available for building them have improved since then, and the raw resources needed as their inputs aren't a constraint, so why have costs risen so much relative to what we are willing to spend on it? Environmental and safety regulations are supposed to be explanations for this rise in cost, not rival explanati…

As I said, the problem with nuclear power are all these ragtag powerplants that were hastily built at a time people didn't understand the potential for catastrophic failure. If you get rid of these ancient power plants, the risk of failure goes down dramatically and the need for further regulation disappears. Meanwhile everywhere you keep hearing how e.g. Germany should keep obsolete power plants even though this will ruin the long term reputation of nuclear further.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#230
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the above is true enough, but it is not the full story on why US nukes cost like they do. The ones attempted recently in South Carolina and Georgia cost so much because people in a position to block building them want it that way. Once a nuke project starts, a torrent of money starts flowing. Everybody with a stake expects a share, and none want it ever to end. Finishing a plant would plug that flow. If it loo…

>We see the same process with urban tunnels and big military procurements. It is all perfectly legal. It is probably not fixable. Not being a lawyer and all that, would some of this holding of the hands-out not qualify as some sort of grift or worse? Are there not laws already in place for this stuff? Is it a case of it being too hard to prove so no prosecutions are brought?

I think the technical term is "patronage". I am not very clear on the details. It is just, the bigger the budget, the more people you need on board pulling for it vs. every other project after the same money. Some people will support you because they agree with your priorities. Others need persuasion. You don't personally have the means for persuasion, but the project does, so it comes from that budget.

Of course, the more persuasion you need, the more it costs, and the more backing you need. So it is usually better to budget less and plan on overruns, instead. And, finishing on time would mean cutting off all those backers; thus, the schedule is overrun, too.

Thing is, most things somebody wants to spend $billions in public money on shouldn't proceed.

Post reply on HN